i don't understand y people in the govt. who r basicaly
elected 4rm the same public most of the times consider themselves
superior to others though it is not so.i talked to amricans i
talked to indians the r very nice people . but as far as govt.
policies of these countries are considered even my own country ,
these r sometimes very awkward. i want 2 ask the so called
modrenizied and civilized world where were ur conscience when
milions of people died in japan .just becuse the policies of their
govt. dat were not acceptable to us govt. and wt abt the the
innocent public of boht the countries who had to suffer alot .
I condem every such atack dat is responsible 4 killin even
a single person either he is muslim, hindu , christian
or anyone. may God help us all to solve ths incomprehnsible
enigma.

I agree with much of what you say, but I look at it this way: if
the US didn't fight Japan, what would my father's life have
been? His home town in the Philippines was occupied by the
Japanese when he was 5. They treated the Filipinos poorly and
it seems clear they would have continued to do so if they had
stayed. So to me this war was necessary for getting the
Japanese of those days out of the Philippines and Korea and Taiwan
and China (many of those people were treated much worse than the
Filipinos) and for getting the Nazis out of power.

It is shameful that innocent people have to die sometimes.
But it would also be shameful to have allowed Japan and Germany to
continue in the ways that they were behaving in the those days.

My father was an American G.I. who stormed Utah Beach on D- Day in 1944. After long fighting, he suffered a severe back wound in the Battle of the Bulge. After recovering, he rejoined his unit and fought his way across the Rhine River and through Germany. Following Hitler's surrender, his unit received orders that they would be among the first wave of troops to invade Japan. As most of the previous posts have stated, the two bombs--the first did not convince the Japanese to surrender--saved tens of thousands of American lives that would have been sacrificed in a land invasion of the islands. I am probably alive today because my father, and many other G.I.s like him, did not have to sacrifice their lives instead.

Wow--as I lost two great uncles on the USS Arizona, my family
would be outraged at my response, but I cannot agree that it was
"right" for the United States to drop the atomic bombs on two
cities in which citizens were going about the innocent business of
everyday life. These innocent families were not responsible for the
choices their government made, and yet they were killed as a
result.

Hmm . . .when terrorists attacked our country because of the
misdeeds of our government it was wrong. When innocent civilians
die as a result of bombings in Iraq, it's considered wrong. How was
Hiroshima and Nagasaki any different?

If your logic holds (and I agree with scarletpimpernel about the
differences between 9/11 and this), then you should not stop with
condemning the atomic bombs. You should take this to its
logical conclusion and condemn all bombing of all German and
Japanese cities, which killed as many innocent people as the atomic
bombs.

You should probably also condemn attacks on French cities that
were held by the Germans.

The problem I see with this sort of (to my mind excessive)
idealism is that if you have "bad guys" who use their power for
unacceptable ends, then you can either A) just let them do whatever
they want or you can B) fight back against them on the idea that
the UNINTENDED deaths of innocent people are outweighed by the good
brought by defeating the aggressors.

If you renounce all killing of innocent civilians, you renounce
war. That would be great, but only after we live in a perfect
world where we never have to fight back against people who use
their power for wrong.

While it is certainly impossible to predict what would have happened if the U.S. had not bombed Japan, it is also impossible to determine if America's actions were "right." Were the Allied forces in agreement with America's actions? Yes. Did the bombs bring the end of the war immediately? Yes. So, in that sense, the decision to drop the atomic bombs was effective.

It would be interesting to talk to a WWII Japanese veteran about what Japan's plan was. Many believe that the war in the Pacific theater would have continued indefinitely because the Japanese were fierce warriors and had so much to lose, but again, no one can say what "would" have happened.

What is true is that America did its best to warn the people of Japan by dropping flyers with information about the bombings. So, in that sense, the dropping of the atomic bombs is quite different from terrorist attacks or innocent civilians dying in Iraq (most of whom--if you look at the statistics--die from insurgent-created bombs--the U.S. is no longer waging an air campaign in Iraq and hasn't been for some time).

In regards to Post #9, I haven't heard bin Laden or others who claim responsibility for terrorist attacks in the U.S. say that they attacked because of government choices; so it's not logical to compare the terrorist attacks today which are based on radical religious ideology (bin Laden hates our society, our culture, our economy, not "choices" made by the government) to an attack during a world war with a military enemy.

Wow--as I lost two great uncles on the USS Arizona, my family would be outraged at my response, but I cannot agree that it was "right" for the United States to drop the atomic bombs on two cities in which citizens were going about the innocent business of everyday life. These innocent families were not responsible for the choices their government made, and yet they were killed as a result.

Hmm . . .when terrorists attacked our country because of the misdeeds of our government it was wrong. When innocent civilians die as a result of bombings in Iraq, it's considered wrong. How was Hiroshima and Nagasaki any different?

It is said that history is written by the victors. And the question is asked here on an American website if it was right for America to use the atomic bomb on the enemy cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Now I know, from the American point of view, that we believe that far more lives were saved on both sides by using those two bombs. If they hadn't been used, so the reasoning goes, the Japanese would have fought, in some places, until the last man, woman, and child was wiped out. This would have cost untold loss of lives on both the invading side and especially the defending side.

OK. That's the American view. Are there any Japanese people out there? What is the view of the nation of Japan about the use of Atomic bombs? What was the view just after the bombs were used? What is it now?

And how about those individuals responsible for theorizing and constructing the bombs? Did they think the devastation caused and the annihilation of human life and the subsequent years of suffering and mutations caused by the bombs was right? Did Robert J. Oppenheimer and Albert Einstein think it was right? Do their opinions count today?

The answer assumes that it was right for the US to use atomic bombs. This is very debatable at best and at worst, wrong. The number of deaths, in my opinion, did not make the bombings right at all. However, if a person wanted to make the case that the bombings were right, I suppose that he or she would say one of two things:

The most common answer for this is that the use of the atomic bombs on these two Japanese cities saved more lives than they destroyed.

If the bombs had not been used, it would likely have been necessary to invade Japan in order to end the war (remember that Japan still wouldn't surrender even after the first bomb).

This invasion would have been horribly bloody. The invasions of such islands as Saipan, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa showed how many Japanese (both military and civilians) would die as well as showing how bloody it would be for American soldiers. If the invasions of these islands were bloody, how much worse would it have been to invade the home islands of Japan that were A) heavily populated and B) more important to the Japanese than any of those other three.

So historians in the US, at least, tend to argue that the bombs saved lives on the whole, even though they were horrible for the people of those two cities.

It is said that history is written by the victors. And the
question is asked here on an American website if it was right for
America to use the atomic bomb on the enemy cities of Hiroshima and
Nagasaki.

Now I know, from the American point of view, that we believe
that far more lives were saved on both sides by using those two
bombs. If they hadn't been used, so the reasoning goes, the
Japanese would have fought, in some places, until the last man,
woman, and child was wiped out. This would have cost untold loss of
lives on both the invading side and especially the defending
side.

OK. That's the American view. Are there any Japanese people out
there? What is the view of the nation of Japan about the use of
Atomic bombs? What was the view just after the bombs were used?
What is it now?

And how about those individuals responsible for theorizing and
constructing the bombs? Did they think the devastation caused and
the annihilation of human life and the subsequent years of
suffering and mutations caused by the bombs was right? Did Robert
J. Oppenheimer and Albert Einstein think it was right? Do their
opinions count today?

I believe the truly important issue is that people had and have
a conscience about monumental decisions such as this. If I believed
otherwise it would be seriously disturbing. Simple things in life
are quite rigidly predictable-if we sow seed in good soil and there
is rain and sunlight crops will grow. If we touch a match to dry
wood and kindling we can have a fire and warmth. There are
innumerable such examples of simple situations where the outcome of
our actions is fairly certain.

Unfortunately the bombing of those cities in WWII were not part
of a circumstance with predictable outcome. It was a most terrible
tragedy for the world to be in that situation in the first place
but I would like to believe that the people responsible for that
decision made the the best choice that they were able to with the
information at their disposal. The simple fact is there was no way
to know which choice would result in less suffering and
loss of life.

In closing I'd like to say that I hope we never find ourselves
in such circumstances again. The fact is, however, and at least as
far as I can tell, we are in more serious jeopardy from
environmental degradation and resource depletion than from anything
else, although that could certainly be a major source of world
conflict in itself.

i don't understand y people in the govt. who r basicaly elected 4rm the same public most of the times consider themselves superior to others though it is not so.i talked to amricans i talked to indians the r very nice people . but as far as govt. policies of these countries are considered even my own country , these r sometimes very awkward. i want 2 ask the so called modrenizied and civilized world where were ur conscience when milions of people died in japan .just becuse the policies of their govt. dat were not acceptable to us govt. and wt abt the the innocent public of boht the countries who had to suffer alot . I condem every such atack dat is responsible 4 killin even a single person either he is muslim, hindu , christian or anyone. may God help us all to solve ths incomprehnsible enigma.

It is difficult to say with conviction that it was right for the United States to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The only clear benefit of doing this was to bring a long war to a speedy closure. But we cannot be sure that this was the only way to bring the war to a close.

One alternative way that comes to my mind immediately, and which does not necessarily preclude the use of atomic bombs, was to at least give some kind of credible warnings to Japan of the devastating power of bomb, before actually using it.

By dropping the atomic bomb, USA, which enjoys a very high reputation for supporting humanistic values, has made it easier for others to use atom bomb without feeling guilty.